I submit my ignorance for your criticism

[iparatroop]

First, I am not a medical professional.
Second, I am not a biochemist.
Third, although I feel I have done a ton of research, I feel as though there are another ten tons I would like to learn.
All that being said, here are my thoughts.

I see a lot of recommendations here for cycles. For instance; it seems as though test-e@500mg weekly is standard protocol. Here is my issue. If we view the human body as a sponge, it would seem that there should be no standard protocol, especially in a dosage that high, to start off with. The reasons I think this follow.
Not all sponges are created equal. Sponge A can hold one liter of water without spillage, whereas Sponge B can only hold .75L and that extra .25L spills out creating a mess. Lets say that water is test and the sponges are two males. Male A puts to better use the same dosage as Male B. That excess test in Male B then begins to aromatize, making a mess and requiring further self-medication (AIs, SERMs, bro science remedies). With this theory in mind, would it not be beneficial for one who chooses to advance to the dark side to start off on a lower dose and taper up, rather than be reactive and fend off sides while not considering lowering the dosage of the original, yet problematic compound?
I often read "take this at this dosage at this time of day to counter your sides", but I don't believe I've ever read "lower your test dosage to a more manageable one for your body".
Drugs are drugs, whether they be hormonal in nature, or not. Alcohol, for instance, is very progressive and easy to monitor. We have charts showing body weight and composition versus consumption rates and results that follow. I can have a drink, and then another and start to feel the effects. I know that at X amount of drinks, I'm drunk and then I stop. I've achieved my desired results at X. I did not know, in the beginning, what X was until I gradually "tapered up" to reach my limit. Would the use of AAS not be similar in nature?
In the case of TRT, I've heard of docs prescribing "low dosages" of test (much lower than 500mgs weekly. Are these really low, or is there a significant amount of benefits to be reaped from them?
I suppose my question is, would it not be more beneficial and possibly better on reducing sides, to start on a lower dose of test and taper up until you find X, and carry on at that dose until cycle complete?
Flame if you want, I'm trying to learn, and maybe even help the next guy. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated input and knowledge.

 

[druller655321]

Good food for thought. But where do we draw that line of where to start when we taper up. Test isn't like a beer, it's not like there are hundreds of years of people using test. Hormone therapy is still in its infancy compared to drinking. There is still some trial and error involved, but I agree we shouldn't give one size fits all dosing advice.

 

[kdeome]

Very interesting take on things...

 

[EasyEJL]

I see a lot of recommendations here for cycles. For instance; it seems as though test-e@500mg weekly is standard protocol. Here is my issue. If we view the human body as a sponge, it would seem that there should be no standard protocol, especially in a dosage that high, to start off with. The reasons I think this follow.
Not all sponges are created equal. Sponge A can hold one liter of water without spillage, whereas Sponge B can only hold .75L and that extra .25L spills out creating a mess. Lets say that water is test and the sponges are two males.

but the human body isn't a sponge, and testosterone isn't water, so its pointless to compare

Male A puts to better use the same dosage as Male B. That excess test in Male B then begins to aromatize, making a mess and requiring further self-medication (AIs, SERMs, bro science remedies). With this theory in mind, would it not be beneficial for one who chooses to advance to the dark side to start off on a lower dose and taper up, rather than be reactive and fend off sides while not considering lowering the dosage of the original, yet problematic compound?

the problem with starting lower and tapering up is that without you getting blood tests weekly to see where you are, you still are just guessing. And you are taking a longer time on cycle, with your natural production suppressed the entire time, making it harder to recover later, while at the same time getting less in gains.

I often read "take this at this dosage at this time of day to counter your sides", but I don't believe I've ever read "lower your test dosage to a more manageable one for your body".

that's because a test dose manageable for your body is natural production levels. anything above that has side effects of one sort or another even if its just increased red blood cell count (which can kill you too)

Drugs are drugs, whether they be hormonal in nature, or not. Alcohol, for instance, is very progressive and easy to monitor. We have charts showing body weight and composition versus consumption rates and results that follow. I can have a drink, and then another and start to feel the effects. I know that at X amount of drinks, I'm drunk and then I stop. I've achieved my desired results at X. I did not know, in the beginning, what X was until I gradually "tapered up" to reach my limit. Would the use of AAS not be similar in nature?

no, because you can't guess what your estrogen level is, or how much protein you are synthesizing per day, where as with alcohol you can tell. Particularly as well because with using enanthate or cypionate you are talking about 24-36 hours to peak from injection, and half life arguably in the 7-10 day range. Alcohol is rather immediate. With testosterone no ester its closer to alcohol in terms of immediacy, but also does require injecting daily to possibly multiple times per day, which is a horror in the end. Rotating sites, scar tissue buildup, etc.

In the case of TRT, I've heard of docs prescribing "low dosages" of test (much lower than 500mgs weekly. Are these really low, or is there a significant amount of benefits to be reaped from them?

Some benefit comes from them, but the whole point is that TRT is Testosterone REPLACEMENT Therapy. Its meant to replace natural testosterone at natural levels. for older guys the amount prescribed gives them the testosterone level of a 20something so they get a bit more effect from it, but overall it is meant to bring you to normal levels, not above.

I suppose my question is, would it not be more beneficial and possibly better on reducing sides, to start on a lower dose of test and taper up until you find X, and carry on at that dose until cycle complete?
Flame if you want, I'm trying to learn, and maybe even help the next guy. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated input and knowledge.

But without blood tests, you won't find X, you'll be guessing. And when you see X, it could be as much as 3-4 days past the injection. You can play around here http://roidcalc.com/ with doses, injections, etc to get an idea how levels build over time. But lets assume we go with your methodology. Start at 200mg a week, which is above natural replacement, but not by a lot (average replacement dose is in the 125mg range). So how often do you raise the dose? Since its somewhat additive (given halflife) lets assume you are going to bump it by 50mg a week. At that point, you aren't reaching the 500mg range till after the 6th week, at which point you only have half the cycle left. So you've gotten a full 12 weeks of suppression for a much lower amount of muscle gain. You aren't going on a testosterone cycle for health improvement, you are going on it for muscle gain.

 

[iparatroop]

but the human body isn't a sponge, and testosterone isn't water, so its pointless to compare the problem with starting lower and tapering up is that without you getting blood tests weekly to see where you are, you still are just guessing. And you are taking a longer time on cycle, with your natural production suppressed the entire time, making it harder to recover later, while at the same time getting less in gains. that's because a test dose manageable for your body is natural production levels. anything above that has side effects of one sort or another even if its just increased red blood cell count (which can kill you too) no, because you can't guess what your estrogen level is, or how much protein you are synthesizing per day, where as with alcohol you can tell. Particularly as well because with using enanthate or cypionate you are talking about 24-36 hours to peak from injection, and half life arguably in the 7-10 day range. Alcohol is rather immediate. With testosterone no ester its closer to alcohol in terms of immediacy, but also does require injecting daily to possibly multiple times per day, which is a horror in the end. Rotating sites, scar tissue buildup, etc. Some benefit comes from them, but the whole point is that TRT is Testosterone REPLACEMENT Therapy. Its meant to replace natural testosterone at natural levels. for older guys the amount prescribed gives them the testosterone level of a 20something so they get a bit more effect from it, but overall it is meant to bring you to normal levels, not above.
But without blood tests, you won't find X, you'll be guessing. And when you see X, it could be as much as 3-4 days past the injection. You can play around here http://roidcalc.com/ with doses, injections, etc to get an idea how levels build over time. But lets assume we go with your methodology. Start at 200mg a week, which is above natural replacement, but not by a lot (average replacement dose is in the 125mg range). So how often do you raise the dose? Since its somewhat additive (given halflife) lets assume you are going to bump it by 50mg a week. At that point, you aren't reaching the 500mg range till after the 6th week, at which point you only have half the cycle left. So you've gotten a full 12 weeks of suppression for a much lower amount of muscle gain. You aren't going on a testosterone cycle for health improvement, you are going on it for muscle gain.

Thank you, and this is the type of response I was hoping for. As far as guessing on estrogen levels, I know that to nail down a number, you'd be hard pressed without bloods. On the contrary, certain physical symptoms would be present, usually, to mark high estrogen levels.
I know that the body isn't a sponge, literally, but it is figuratively in that it absorbs what is put in to it. And I know test isn't water, I was more using the analogy to demonstrate that some people react better to higher dosages. And that excess test seems to cause problems when there is a lot of it.
I hadn't really taken half-life into account. This presents a hole in my theory.
Considering suppression and time on with arguably less gains, all of what you said make sense. Thank you for your time.

 

[EasyEJL]

Thank you, and this is the type of response I was hoping for. As far as guessing on estrogen levels, I know that to nail down a number, you'd be hard pressed without bloods. On the contrary, certain physical symptoms would be present, usually, to mark high estrogen levels.

well, high estrogen isn't all that obvious necessarily. Some people can cope with a much higher estrogen levels than others. I don't experience noticeable issues even getting into the 100+ range (with the scale that has a high of 56). Where others see issues just breaking 50. So its all a crapshoot really anyhow.

 

[iparatroop]

well, high estrogen isn't all that obvious necessarily. Some people can cope with a much higher estrogen levels than others. I don't experience noticeable issues even getting into the 100+ range (with the scale that has a high of 56). Where others see issues just breaking 50. So its all a crapshoot really anyhow.

I agree that high levels aren't always obvious. But when they become obvious, and problems start to arise on cycle (ie gyno, ED,etc..) could lowering test dosage be a better solution than adding other meds? I think my curiosity lies more in that question than anywhere else.

 

[EasyEJL]

I agree that high levels aren't always obvious. But when they become obvious, and problems start to arise on cycle (ie gyno, ED,etc..) could lowering test dosage be a better solution than adding other meds? I think my curiosity lies more in that question than anywhere else.

it can, but you start getting to the point of not necessarily getting as significant results as you'd like for the expense and legal issue of using it in the first place. There's not a lot of point to spending $250 on a cycle and adjuncts for 16 weeks (including pct) to only gain 8 lbs in that time either. Probably most guys would do just fine (estrogen + gains wise) at starting + staying at 400mg. But most of the time, its the push to make huge gains that drives what people do, not necessarily common sense.

 

[BigShadow]

well, high estrogen isn't all that obvious necessarily. Some people can cope with a much higher estrogen levels than others. I don't experience noticeable issues even getting into the 100+ range (with the scale that has a high of 56). Where others see issues just breaking 50. So its all a crapshoot really anyhow.

It's actually not obvious at all for most. Recently read a cycle that op got bloods and his estro was +300. Yikes and agree everyone is different. The prescribed 500mg a week everyone talks about is a guide line. It's not a low dose but for most looking to get there feet wet it's a perfect dose IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using Am.com

 

[BigShadow]

it can, but you start getting to the point of not necessarily getting as significant results as you'd like for the expense and legal issue of using it in the first place. There's not a lot of point to spending $250 on a cycle and adjuncts for 16 weeks (including pct) to only gain 8 lbs in that time either. Probably most guys would do just fine (estrogen + gains wise) at starting + staying at 400mg. But most of the time, its the push to make huge gains that drives what people do, not necessarily common sense.

^^^^well said

Sent from my iPhone using Am.com

 

[iparatroop]

it can, but you start getting to the point of not necessarily getting as significant results as you'd like for the expense and legal issue of using it in the first place. There's not a lot of point to spending $250 on a cycle and adjuncts for 16 weeks (including pct) to only gain 8 lbs in that time either. Probably most guys would do just fine (estrogen + gains wise) at starting + staying at 400mg. But most of the time, its the push to make huge gains that drives what people do, not necessarily common sense.

I guess I'm more about a common sense approach when it comes to this. I know that, realistically, I'm never going to become the next Arnold. I'm not scared of sides, nor am I scared to deal with them. At the same time, if I were able to find that happy place where sides were minimal/tolerable and gains were worth the sides, that would be optimum.
I know I'll be running test-e for 14 weeks. I'll probably run tren ace for alongside it for the first four weeks. I just want to approach it in the most common sense way I possibly can.
Significant results for me would be maximum gains and minimal sides/reactive self-medicating.
Again, thank you for bestowing your knowledge. It's greatly appreciated.

 

[EasyEJL]

I'd suggest not running the tren alongside first time. it definitely skews the side effects, and if it is your first testosterone cycle and you are concerned about estrogen, better to not complicate matters

 

[iparatroop]

I'd suggest not running the tren alongside first time. it definitely skews the side effects, and if it is your first testosterone cycle and you are concerned about estrogen, better to not complicate matters

Would your recommendation change at all of I were to tell you that I've run oral "tren" at 90mgs daily for 30 days thrice? It was also stacked with epi. Don't know if you remember Spawn? Only sides were awesomeness and some shrinkage. Maybe a little hair loss but I suffer from MPB anyway and keep a shaved head so I don't care about that.
I'm not really worried about estro. I'll have everything on hand that I need to combat anything I may come across, as I don't like half-stepping.

 

[EasyEJL]

Would your recommendation change at all of I were to tell you that I've run oral "tren" at 90mgs daily for 30 days thrice? It was also stacked with epi. Don't know if you remember Spawn? Only sides were awesomeness and some shrinkage. Maybe a little hair loss but I suffer from MPB anyway and keep a shaved head so I don't care about that.
I'm not really worried about estro. I'll have everything on hand that I need to combat anything I may come across, as I don't like half-stepping.

nope, they aren't even similar. If you run the testosterone at 400-500, for 14 weeks with decent diet and workout plan, gaining 10-12 lean pounds is easy. The tren will add extra strength gains, which will disappear a bit once you are done. The other thing tren is good for is trying to seriously eat into a huge bulk, but the problem there is that you'll end up adding fat if you are off by too much calorie wise.

 

[mikeg313]

I guess I'm more about a common sense approach when it comes to this. I know that, realistically, I'm never going to become the next Arnold. I'm not scared of sides, nor am I scared to deal with them. At the same time, if I were able to find that happy place where sides were minimal/tolerable and gains were worth the sides, that would be optimum.
I know I'll be running test-e for 14 weeks. I'll probably run tren ace for alongside it for the first four weeks. I just want to approach it in the most common sense way I possibly can.
Significant results for me would be maximum gains and minimal sides/reactive self-medicating.
Again, thank you for bestowing your knowledge. It's greatly appreciated.

Saying your not scared of sides nor afraid of dealing with them isn't the smartest way to look at things. I had that attitude as well running a 500mg test e cycle then something happened and ill quite EJ on this

that's because a test dose manageable for your body is natural production levels. anything above that has side effects of one sort or another even if its just increased red blood cell count (which can kill you ) .

I didn't have my bloods done and was making great gains (20lbs and slightly lower bf%) . I went from 220lbs to 245 at about 16% and my strength gains were awesome by the 8th week when I had a heart attack. My red blood cell count was through the roof and my blood was pumping through my heart like molasses resulting in what the cardiologist called a "minor heart attack". Out of all sides this was the last thing I ever expected as I've never had heart issues. I've read that frequently donating blood on cycle as much as once a week can counteract this from possibly occurring. My knowledge on steroid use is very basic but I did experience a less common serious side effect I'm sure most never think to concern themselves about till its to late. I'm just saying this so you don't take the possible sides lightly.

 

[iparatroop]

I probably should have typed "I'm not too scared of the common sides" rather than what I did.
Sorry about your unfortunate incident. Hopefully you're doing better now.
And of course, I don't want to go into cardiac arrest as the result of cycling.

 

[mikeg313]

I probably should have typed "I'm not too scared of the common sides" rather than what I did.
Sorry about your unfortunate incident. Hopefully you're doing better now.
And of course, I don't want to go into cardiac arrest as the result of cycling.

My incident was because of my ignorance. I figured cycle, AI,pct, supports for it all and I'm good. I know how to use them and I'm healthy so what can go wrong that I can't catch and put a stop to? Right? Wrong! Everything on the outside said my response was perfect but on the inside hidden in my blood **** was going south. I haven't seen anyone else on here have an issue like this since ive been around last couple years but that could be cus they did their bloodwork or donated regularly I'm guessing. Or they're just lucky which I'm sure is more common then not. I'm just saying cover your bases.

 

[iparatroop]

I have what may be a silly question. Do you still use?

 

[EasyEJL]

its pretty rare on a single cycle, but if you were near the top of the scale naturally, just bumping you up 15-20% would put you at heart attack risk. Its far worse for people who are on longer cycles, or on year round.

 

[iparatroop]

My incident was because of my ignorance. I figured cycle, AI,pct, supports for it all and I'm good. I know how to use them and I'm healthy so what can go wrong that I can't catch and put a stop to? Right? Wrong! Everything on the outside said my response was perfect but on the inside hidden in my blood **** was going south. I haven't seen anyone else on here have an issue like this since ive been around last couple years but that could be cus they did their bloodwork or donated regularly I'm guessing. Or they're just lucky which I'm sure is more common then not. I'm just saying cover your bases.

Had you ever had your heart checked prior to cycling? How about bloods beforehand?

 

[mikeg313]

I have what may be a silly question. Do you still use?

Not since but I'm gearing up for another run at it and taking the necessary (for me at least) precautions. I.e. bloodwork , dose amount etc

 

[mikeg313]

its pretty rare on a single cycle, but if you were near the top of the scale naturally, just bumping you up 15-20% would put you at heart attack risk. Its far worse for people who are on longer cycles, or on year round.

Yes I agree. Just from researching it since it happened I've found little talked about on the subject. Although rare I still find the need to share my experience to try help prevent it from happening to others.

 

[MANotaur]

First, I am not a medical professional.
Second, I am not a biochemist.
Third, although I feel I have done a ton of research, I feel as though there are another ten tons I would like to learn.
All that being said, here are my thoughts.

I see a lot of recommendations here for cycles. For instance; it seems as though test-e@500mg weekly is standard protocol. Here is my issue. If we view the human body as a sponge, it would seem that there should be no standard protocol, especially in a dosage that high, to start off with. The reasons I think this follow.
Not all sponges are created equal. Sponge A can hold one liter of water without spillage, whereas Sponge B can only hold .75L and that extra .25L spills out creating a mess. Lets say that water is test and the sponges are two males. Male A puts to better use the same dosage as Male B. That excess test in Male B then begins to aromatize, making a mess and requiring further self-medication (AIs, SERMs, bro science remedies). With this theory in mind, would it not be beneficial for one who chooses to advance to the dark side to start off on a lower dose and taper up, rather than be reactive and fend off sides while not considering lowering the dosage of the original, yet problematic compound?
I often read "take this at this dosage at this time of day to counter your sides", but I don't believe I've ever read "lower your test dosage to a more manageable one for your body".
Drugs are drugs, whether they be hormonal in nature, or not. Alcohol, for instance, is very progressive and easy to monitor. We have charts showing body weight and composition versus consumption rates and results that follow. I can have a drink, and then another and start to feel the effects. I know that at X amount of drinks, I'm drunk and then I stop. I've achieved my desired results at X. I did not know, in the beginning, what X was until I gradually "tapered up" to reach my limit. Would the use of AAS not be similar in nature?
In the case of TRT, I've heard of docs prescribing "low dosages" of test (much lower than 500mgs weekly. Are these really low, or is there a significant amount of benefits to be reaped from them?
I suppose my question is, would it not be more beneficial and possibly better on reducing sides, to start on a lower dose of test and taper up until you find X, and carry on at that dose until cycle complete?
Flame if you want, I'm trying to learn, and maybe even help the next guy. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated input and knowledge.

youve raised some good questions my friend. And i have advocated lower dosages.


our bodies are very much like sponges, but there are some key differences that you need to remember,

our bodies have a closed circulatory system. what goes in stays in till its used or broken down elsewhere, or the said compounds chemically degrade (spare me the flaming, i know this isnt entirely accurate but for many physiological process in the body this is the case) in turn this results in no spillage.

Our bodies also have an active endocrine system. This means that alot of our bodies hormones (again please spare me the insults, I know that there is always exceptions) are self regulating by a system of check points and feedback. Good examples of this are your thyroid with t3, t4, and to an extent t2 levels. This is also true with our HPTA and sex hormones.

The problem that body builders and performance athletes run into are our bodies only produce a small amount of what its capable of handling and utulizing to its fullness. when exogenous hormones are introduced, our body will actually create more ways for it to use these hormones, or basically give them a place to go and a role to fill.

our bodies are very complex and very smart. Its increadable! I love studying it and its capabilities.

you couldnt be more right though that we need to pay attention to our bodies and be careful with what we put into it. We should always be aware of the law of diminishing returns and make sure that the strain and work is worth the results and return.
if a person is making increadable gains on 250mgs/ test alone and they are happy with it, why keep pushing that envelope? (i say that as im currently on 3 anabolics at reletively high doses)

The bottom line is, people are obsessed with perfection, no matter how impossible it is to reach. We will always be in pursuit at what we consider to be perfect. Unfortunately some will stop at nothing to reach this goal, even if it requires them to stress their bodies beyond its physical means.

we can only be here to support and guide those with propper that wish to accomplish their goals, its up to them to act upon it and do as their mind, bodies and goals deem fit.

 

[iparatroop]

Yes I agree. Just from researching it since it happened I've found little talked about on the subject. Although rare I still find the need to share my experience to try help prevent it from happening to others.

So my next question to you is, what are you going to do differently on this next run, as far as prevention is concerned?

 

[MANotaur]

I would highly reccomend going to your local college campus or library and picking up any cell biology, physiology, anatomy and bichemistry books that you can. you can find old ones for very cheap online and 98% of the information is correct if its been within 2 to 3 editions of the current volume. Mine from my undergrad are still just as accurate as the ones im using for my doctorate minus a few details that come to light as technology becomes better. most of the new discoveries as it applies to BB wont affect your understanding biologic and biochemical fucntions as they pertain to humans.

hope this helps trooper as this is the best advice i have for you!

 

[iparatroop]

I understand a lot about how the body works and its closed circulatory system. I understand how things are metabolized and all that good stuff, to a certain degree.
The "spillage" I was referring to would be the excess test aromatizing.
Thanks for the advice on the reads. I have some experience in the medical field, but I'm by no means a doc. I will be though.

 

[MANotaur]

I understand a lot about how the body works and its closed circulatory system. I understand how things are metabolized and all that good stuff, to a certain degree.
The "spillage" I was referring to would be the excess test aromatizing.
Thanks for the advice on the reads. I have some experience in the medical field, but I'm by no means a doc. I will be though.

good deal bro! you goin to med school?? and i know you do, but theres alot of people on here that could read it that wouldnt know what you meant. cant have people theyre litterally pissing and sweating all their extra test away lol

but the aromatizing has everything to do with a closed negetive feedback inhibitory system, more commonly know as a negetive feedback loop- look into it. Itll open your eyes into the best way to handle a PCT and also the miracle of cancer drugs and how amazing they really are.

 

[iparatroop]

Not going to be attending a "traditional" medical school, per se, but it's pretty advanced stuff. There's still a process I have to go through to get there. I've been through it before, I can do it again.

 

[MANotaur]

Not going to be attending a "traditional" medical school, per se, but it's pretty advanced stuff. There's still a process I have to go through to get there. I've been through it before, I can do it again.

the hell?? you goin through singapore or the caribean?? or is there some form of alternate licensure route for primary level clinicians nowadays?

 

[mikeg313]

So my next question to you is, what are you going to do differently on this next run, as far as prevention is concerned?

Yes I already made that statement in the post above the one you just quoted. That's the second question you asked when the answer was already given. Not being a dick just reminding you to read all your responses since your last look not just the last one ;-)

 

[iparatroop]

Yes I already made that statement in the post above the one you just quoted. That's the second question you asked when the answer was already given. Not being a dick just reminding you to read all your responses since your last look not just the last one ;-)

I was asking what the difference in your cycle choice was going to be, along with other preventative measures. Mostly in reference to red blood cell count and molasses blood.

 

[mikeg313]

Regular blood donation for one . (Also helps others in the process, double positive)

 

[iparatroop]

Regular blood donation for one . (Also helps others in the process, double positive)

Got it. I haven't been able to give blood for quite some time due to vaccinations and the areas of the world I've been to and tattoos. I wonder if the blood from someone on cycle can even be used?

 

[mikeg313]

Got it. I haven't been able to give blood for quite some time due to vaccinations and the areas of the world I've been to and tattoos. I wonder if the blood from someone on cycle can even be used?

To answer that ill quote someone from another forum because I'm on a phone and typing sucks with fat fingers. Here's what another had to say on the topic that sounds informative. Whether or not he's %100 right I don't know but he sounded educated on the matter

". if you use esterized steroids , there is not enough of a dose available in a pint of blood at any time to cause any effects to the recipient. Any test in the blood will be disposed of by the recipient's liver and kidneys within a few hours. Your deposition of steroids is in a muscle and continuously released from that site to replace what is removed by liver and kidneys or also its simply consumed. The lady recipient will probably feel nothing more then a little bit hornier then usual.

As far as donating while on steroids. Guys who are on legal testosterone replacement programs are encouraged to donate blood 3 to 4 times a year to combate a condition caused by steroids that causes you to have excessive levels of red blood and white blood cells, your blood while on steroids is excessively thick and the immune system within the blood (white blood cells) are particularly robust. Actually blood given by a steroid user is "better" blood then that given by a non-steroid user. The quality of your blood is so good it can help the recipient heal faster, fight infection, etc, so no reason to hold back, not only that but its good for YOU, the steroid user. We should all donate blood especially if cycles are 3 months or longer because your super thick blood can make you more susceptable to heat stroke or other thick blood related strokes."

 

[iparatroop]

Great information. Thank you sir.

 

[EasyEJL]

Great information. Thank you sir.

the other answer is that they specifically ask if you've injected anything not prescribed by a doctor, and you are disqualified if you have.

 

[Russianog]

With this theory in mind, would it not be beneficial for one who chooses to advance to the dark side to start off on a lower dose and taper up, rather than be reactive and fend off sides while not considering lowering the dosage of the original, yet problematic compound?
I often read "take this at this dosage at this time of day to counter your sides", but I don't believe I've ever read "lower your test dosage to a more manageable one for your body".
Drugs are drugs, whether they be hormonal in nature, or not.

You're right... however

Our bodies are miraculous organisms and have the ability to adapt and react with precision. If someone is experiencing sides from a relatively low dose, they shouldn't lower the dose to eliminate the sides. This just means that they are more prone to them, lowering the dosage, will pretty much make the PH ineffective. The more effective a Ph/AAS is, likely the more sides they will have.

If we start on a lower dose, and slowly taper up, we're talking about longer cycles, more pills. and we're still going to reach the dosage we want, I understand a small taper and that's why people start with pretty much safe dosage, and then they up it respective to their goals and needs from the PH.

This is my understanding of the situation. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[iparatroop]

You're right... however

Our bodies are miraculous organisms and have the ability to adapt and react with precision. If someone is experiencing sides from a relatively low dose, they shouldn't lower the dose to eliminate the sides. This just means that they are more prone to them, lowering the dosage, will pretty much make the PH ineffective. The more effective a Ph/AAS is, likely the more sides they will have.

If we start on a lower dose, and slowly taper up, we're talking about longer cycles, more pills. and we're still going to reach the dosage we want, I understand a small taper and that's why people start with pretty much safe dosage, and then they up it respective to their goals and needs from the PH.

This is my understanding of the situation. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

I understand the adaptive ability of the human body and its ability overcome stressful happenings.
Something else I considered while jotting down my thoughts is how known allergens are introduced to humans to produce immunity. Take, for instance, peanuts. For some people, in any amount, they can be lethal. Anaphylactic shock seems like a pretty scary side effect. Through research and testing, medical professionals have found that through introduction in minuscule amounts and "tapering up" to a larger amount, curing an allergy to peanuts is possible over time. I am aware that this comparison is more than likely just that, a comparison and may not be an accurate interpretation of how the body would react to exogenous hormones but it was something that got me thinking.
I wasn't really considering PHs when I posted, but injectable test more than anything. And as far as "PHs" go, there aren't many of them, as most things marketed under that moniker are active DS and require no conversion.
In reference to longer cycles, some guys never come off anyway. Blast and cruise seems to be quite common.

 

[EasyEJL]

the problem there is that the reaction in an allergy situation is entirely different, as it is the body rejecting the other compound. In the case of high aromatization, its not in any way a rejection response as in general you are primarily increasing levels of what is already in your body.

 

[iparatroop]

Right. The idea of the body being able to change for the sake of an allergen just got me to thinking that maybe test in smaller doses, built up over time may be more tolerable for the body.

 

[EasyEJL]

what I've sort of figured out over time both from personal experience and watching / talking to lots of other people up to even IFBB pros is that the balance of different hormones most of the time makes more difference than the absolute levels of any one. What those ratios (and maximum tolerances) are is still individual though. The lower dose cycles for less gains really is a smart idea anyhow as the slower gains come, the more likely they are to be retained post pct. You do an oral designer cycle and gain 20lbs in a month, good luck if 90 days later you have much more than 6lbs of it left. Do a lower dosed testosterone cycle and gain 10lbs in 14 weeks, odds are you'll keep most of it if not all.

 

[iparatroop]

See, and this is what I was trying to uncover. For the average person, gaining 30lbs creates a whole host of problems. I think that first and foremost, adjusting to the new diet while no longer "on" is super difficult without adding more appetite boosters, especially during PCT. I've put on 24lbs in a month and didn't keep it all. I don't regret it, as I kept some of it, but it just seems way more sensible to do it slow and steady. I've always heard that slow and steady wins the race. Most everything that's done well, is done more fluid and seamless than when it's done not well.
My end state is not to be onstage in a BB contest, but just to be (without sounding too cliche) bigger, stronger and faster. I'd like to be able to adjust slowly, that sounds appealing.

 

[EasyEJL]

I talked to one IFBB pro who never cycled over 350mg a week. He also never came off that 350 a week, but he didn't shoot for high gains, 1 lean pound a month consistently over a few years adds up to a lot.

 

[iparatroop]

Yup. Doesn't sound like a lot over six months, but from the standpoint of two years...